Friday, March 04, 2016

Podesta continued: 'More attention and more discussion about unexplained aerial phenomena can happen without people — who are in public life, who are serious about this — being ridiculed.' In December of last year, Clinton said much the same at a meeting with The Conway Daily Sun, in which she 'enthusiastically' told the editorial board, 'Yes, I'm going to get to the bottom of [the UFO files].'

("A later CNN report characterized the remarks as 'tongue-in-cheek,' a descriptor not used in the Daily Sun's report. ")

California is going NUTS on it's new restrictions on Firearms Ownership. It's increasingly obvious the CIOs (Chief Idiots in Charge) have the goal of pecking the Second Amendment to death via laws which nibble around the edges until honest citizens just throw up their hands and say "Enough, Already!"

* EDITED READ CORRECTION: A Firearm Restraining Order can only be applied for by IMMEDIATE FAMILY!! 2016 is going to be another fight for California on the Gun Control front. With new laws affecting us every year the fight never ends. To help fight back please check out https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ and https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ Fight Gavin Newsom in 2016 and say no to more Ammo and Gun Restrictions

Wednesday, March 02, 2016

I tripped over the doorsill and fell hard on my patio early this morning, busted a nasty gash in the heel of my hand. Ten stitches and a splint on my hand from the Emergency Room later, I'm typing with one hand for at least until they take the stitches out next week. (No bone or nerve damage, thankfully; the splint is just to protect the stitches.)

If nothing else, it makes me appreciate the obstacles that Clayton Cramer has been dealing with.

If I can handle this crap as well as he has, I will be a much better man in a couple of weeks,
Which should make my readers happy ... both of them!

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Obama wants the next large purchase of firearms for the military to focus on "safe" guns rather than "lethal" guns; not everyone is convinced that this shift in priorities it the best way for our Military to serve their nation. As David Codrea suggests:

Depending on who wins the presidency look for this nonsense to be rescinded if a Republican is elected, or expanded with a vengeance if Hillary or Bernie grab the brass ring. If that’s the case, and note this is being written before it’s even determined who the opposing candidates will be, there’s one other option that could be tried: Propose a bill requiring that before “smart guns” can be mandated on gun owners, they must be the exclusive weapons assigned to the presidential Secret Service protective detail.

I think this is a Smart Idea.

Any leader should be willing to expose himself to the same perils and limitations as those people he leads.

That's the leadership principle I was taught when I was in the military as an NCO, and I'm pretty sure that concept is taught in ANY "leadership" school in the nation.

A leader should not ask more of his cadre than he is willing, and able, to do himself.

Obviously, that doesn't necessarily apply at the 'highest levels of government', but if it did then perhaps our Fearless Leaders might pay a little more attention to the peril to which they have exposed their 'underlings' when they impose Draconiam restrictions on the people who are charged with their lives to enforce National policy.

Unfortunately our Dear Leader is more willing to impose restrictions than to protect rights; more prepared to suffer criticism than to suffer consequences; and more of a figure-head than a leader.

Which defines him as less qualified to be a Leader than the lowest Non-Commissioned member of any of our armed services.

As the Clintons had no respect for the Secret Service members who were charged to protect them, to the point of sacrificing them to protect the "National Leadership", some of us had more respect for the working men and women of the Service than we had for their bosses.

Which strongly suggests that it's not the Political Party which occupies the White House as much as it is the trash which sometimes infiltrates ... and yes, I am pointing my fingers at the Clintons.

I don't agree with all of our current president's policies, but he seems to be a better person than "The Man From Hope". And even if the First Lady seems like a food nazi (never mind) she would have to work hard to become the Harridan from Hope.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Yes, firearms are indeed "Killing Machines".
That's what they were designed to do, and they do so most effectively.

(Name Not Acknowledged) gunned down three and injured at least 14 more with an automatic rifle in Kansas Thursday, blasting away randomly from his car and then in the industrial building where he worked. Just another day in America.

This nation cannot awaken from a nightmare: Madmen wield weapons of war to indiscriminately slaughter, in their workplaces, on streets, in movie theaters and in elementary schools. (Name Not Acknowledged) added to the tally of slaughter as Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis is considering the merits of a wrongful death suit — brought by family members of Sandy Hook Elementary School children and one survivor of that assault. LUPICA: GUN-LOVING GOP HOPEFULS IGNORE KANSAS MASS SHOOTING They are trying to sue Remington, America’s top manufacturer of guns and ammunition in the civilian marketplace, for negligent entrustment in manufacturing AR-15s for purchase and use by ordinary Americans. These assaults rifles are weapons of war.

Excuse me?

In the first place, this idiotic guy was the instrument of senseless slaughter. Whatever weapon he chose to use was not the instrument .. it was just a tool. You know, like a hammer (useful for building homes) or a knife (useful for building Dagwood Sandwiches),

Overblown rhetoric, such as this article typifies, are not helpful. Yes, newspapers (et al) are useful; they keep us informed.

Guns and Knives and Newspapers can have a negative side effect.

When someone deliberately misuses them, every gun/knife/newspaper casts a shadow on every instrument of their ilk, and tangentially on every person who uses said instrument in a responsible manner.

In reality, every armed individual is someone just waiting to become a criminal. If you believe so strongly in the Second Amendment, then you should arm yourself with a musket and a flintlock pistol, because that is what the founders had in mind when they established the Constitution.

I had (foolishly, it seems) thought it had something to do with the individual right of each (person) to protect his/her person, family and property. You know, like the First Amendment acknowledged the right of each individual to speak their mind, regardless of how inconvenient and embarrassing those thoughts might be to someone who did not agree with them.

I certainly did not understand that, while the First Amendment still protects the right of free speech regardless of the media (such as television, radio, etc. which did not exist in the 18th century when the constitution was written), the Second Amendment does not protect semi-automatic weapons, "assault rifles", etc. because they did not exist in the 18th century.

Therefore, while everyman may carry a pencil (or an IPOD, or a cell phone, or a pocket camera), he may not carry a 1911 style pistol (for example) because eighteenth century technology RULZ!

It had .. and I'm being entirely candid here ... never occurred to me that the First Amendment Rights were predicated on the CONCEPT of thought, but Second Amendment Rights are predicated on TECHNOLOGY.

Okay, I've got that clear in my mind now. And I cannot tell you how grateful I am to YDR.COM for clearing up that niggling little difference between the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The things you can learn from the Internet.

Oops. Sorry ... they didn't have that Internet thingie in the 18th Century, did they?

The gun lobby has seized on this environment of academic stifling, promoting firearms as the answer to an array of problems on campuses and beyond. Don’t want to get raped? Carry a gun, or it’s your own fault. The best way to prevent an active-shooter situation? Everyone pack heat.

Apparently, the "people" on college campus in South Jersey are not only outraged, but actively revolted by the proposition that students, staff and faculty are now legally 'permitted' to exercise their Second Amendment rights on the grounds of the college campus.

Oh, bad.
Not only bad, but WAY bad!

That conservative forces have long sought to squash dissent and curtail rigorous academic debate on campuses is far from a secret. From the militarization of many campuses, academic repression of faculty, excessive and difficult-to-navigate bureaucracies, limitations on free speech and more, college students, staff and faculty members today face many challenges as they seek to explore, debate and take action on critical and difficult issues.

Huh? What the HEY??
College instructors, teachers, professors and other academicians no longer feel safe when they are brainwashing drilling instructing teaching their students in the Next Generation of Progressiveness? Oh, that's just SO bad!

Texas passed a campus-carry law that is set to take effect on Aug. 1. Already, professors at the University of Houston were told that once the new law is effective, they might want to “be careful discussing sensitive topics,” “drop certain topics from your curriculum,” “ ‘Not go there’ if you sense anger,” “limit students’ access off hours,” “go to appointment-only office hours” and “only meet ‘that student’ in controlled circumstances.”

Oh. Okay, I get it.

Since students, staff and faculty are now allowed to carry guns on campus, the faculty (the staunch conservators of "Liberal Thought" (and no other) are worried that if they preach a gospel which is not kindly received by their drones students, said students might respond by shooting their professors!

(Yeah, right. Like THAT is going to happen! Ammunition is expensive, y'know? Hammers are cheaper.)

And they (the staff and faculty on South Jersey campuses) are worried that "conservative forces" might "squash dissent and curtail rigorous debate on campuses"?

And "they" (supposedly, the students) might register their dissent by shooting their erudite/liberal/progressive professors?

[Well, I guess that getting SHOT might occasionally have an adverse effect on Progressive brainwashing instruction. But in reality, Progressives are so head-in-the-clouds clueless, chances are that they would not even notice their colleagues being murdered in the next room. They are THAT distanced from reality .... and the level of true "intellectual thought" can, as a consequence, go no-where but UP!]

And this is "A Bad Thing"?Or is this just another version of "... rigorous academic debate ...."?

Kitchen/Heat/Exit strategy?

Frankly, I fail to perceive the problem.

Okay, okay; it may result in a slight winnowing of the faculty, but still;

In his first year in office, President Obama lifted an entry ban on foreigners with HIV. In his final year in office he will lift the entry ban on three more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The president's own Health and Human Services department says this guarantees more infections in the United States, proving once again that immigration is the defining issue for politicians like Obama. Increased immigration trumps all other concerns.

I've left this post to lie fallow for a few days, because (a)I'm just mad as hell, and (b)I'm not sure what I can contribute to the story.

The answer is (c) there's nothing that I can add. Y'all just gonna have to figure out for yourselves how you feel about this.

Certainly I was not aware that Obama was allowing foreigners with such pernicious infectious diseases to infest our country.

I'm not particularly surprised ... but this is the kind of thing which one tends to reject because